| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Still not seeing any issue with uncommon spells.
IF a player wants teleport and the GM is okay with it, he doesn't need to create weird sidequests to find a specific spell. He can just drop it as loot via a spellbook over the course of the adventure. Martials frequently get their equipment upgrades in a similar fashion. Wizards and other casters will now have a lot more to look forward to when looting enemies for finding lost treasure.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a DM, players who see those narrative opportunities as "hoops" are not often welcome in my games. Players who respect the work those "hoops" take to make and work to add to party fun and experience often get what they are after.
As a player, most of the DMs in my group are the ones who see such "narrative opportunities" as "hoops" they have to jump through to design and tack on to a (generally pre-written) campaign. Not once have we ever had a successful homebrew game (I think the furthest one's ever made was level 3), and our GMs are incredibly adverse to making more than aesthetic modifications to Paizo's APs. Even modifying loot is sometimes problematic (when we did Crimson Throne's book 5 we literally wound up with the Barbarian grabbing 3 different Greatswords, and the same Barbarian (who'd spent a feat earlier) and Magus getting fancy full plate, while the Cleric, Gunslinger, and my Rogue were still in the same gear we'd picked up two entire books earlier, just because the DM refused to modify anything) so an entire side-quest for 1 player to have the potential to get something that's not directly plot relevant is right out.
I still say the current issue with this system is not power but versatility. Give casters Arcanist/5E like casting. Now the lower spell number of spell slots dont matter since less are wasted and the lower power level doesn't sting as much since they are more able to react in a versatile manner in the moment.
For the record, I used to agree this was the right approach, but once I really looked at 5e's system... it kinda screws Spont Casters. Especially with the current system where they have the exact same number of slots as prepped casters. You would either have to let the prepped casters prep fewer spells (which, given the current system only gives Spont 4 spells known anyways, really doesn't leave many daily options), or give the spont more spell slots (which breaks their whole "one progression for everything" ideology) so they can still have a niche. Especially since Spont would likely still have to learn the same spell several times while the prepped can still prep it in whatever level they want.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Still not seeing any issue with uncommon spells.
IF a player wants teleport and the GM is okay with it, he doesn't need to create weird sidequests to find a specific spell. He can just drop it as loot via a spellbook over the course of the adventure. Martials frequently get their equipment upgrades in a similar fashion. Wizards and other casters will now have a lot more to look forward to when looting enemies for finding lost treasure.
I'm not a fan of "You want to do this? Ask your GM." I don't have a problem with a DM telling his players before hand that they can't have access to a specific thing, but the rarity system does this proactively and without any consideration of what is or is not disruptive to a given campaign.
Furthermore, spells are already able to be dropped as loot via spell book. It's just that now the only way to aquire certain spells is through loot where before you could learn them by level up or through loot acquisition.
Wizard spells shouldn't be the equivalent of the fighter's magic sword; the wizard's magic staff should be the equivalent of the fighter's sword. I don't think fighter's would appreciate if things like cleave could only be aquired through potentially randomly generated loot.
The other problem with the idea that spells = magic items for other classes is that even if you don't get the magic items you want you can still buy/ craft them. I could be missing it but I don't think there is a similar system in place for rare spells.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. Casters have more than sufficient narrative power to make it so non-casters may as well play on their phones for that. This is without even bringing in anything like Simulacrum, and really just a default caster not trying hard to break the game.That is another one of those grandiose statements which actually don't turn out to be true when you examine them with any scrutiny. Yep, casters in general have a lot of narrative power. So do martials, if the player wants that. Casters playing in a way where other players "play on their phones" in the meantime isn't really a thing. It's mostly players who make the game all about them.
Okay, let's pick a really low-difficulty comparison here. A 9th-level wizard can prepare Teleport, Polymorph, Locate Creature, Tongues, Fly, Invisibility Sphere, Dispel Magic, Resist Energy, and Charm Person. What can a 12th-level martial do to compare with that narratively? What can a 14th-level martial do to compare with that narratively?
2. Any strengthening of martials beyond a certain point causes a solid amount of people to complain that they're "breaking the realism".A part of the player base does so. Another part has no problem with it.
It's a pretty large part that I can say has a problem with it - there were quite a few that had a problem even with current skill feats.
If you want to increase martials' narrative power to the point where they match casters without any drop in power, then you have to ignore group #2, and martials end up with superpowers.And nerfing all aspects of arcane casting is not going to do the same or even more? I'm not following you on how nerfing casters was the only solution.
That's because it's only part of the solution - the other major part is increasing general narrative power in a way that doesn't rely on spells, i.e. skill feats. Now, I don't believe that they're sufficient right now, but some of that is likely because they're adjusted to be on the power level of reduced spells.
No, it's not warranted. It's just a decision the developers have taken, because it seems that this is the way they want the game to take on. They wrote 22 AP's so far and a ton of adventures under the current system. And my intent is on convincing them that they should reverse their decision for an all-around caster nerf and just go after the spells which really break the system.
That's either hyperbole or your wish to play a system which is fundamentally another one which we have been playing for more than two decades (since AD&D already had all those "game breaking" spells).
I'm going to point out that any PFS scenario with a hard mode shows how much more likely an all-caster party is to survive than an all-martial party. And I'm pretty sure that none of those include any of the spells which really break the system.
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, let's pick a really low-difficulty comparison here. A 9th-level wizard can prepare Teleport, Polymorph, Locate Creature, Tongues, Fly, Invisibility Sphere, Dispel Magic, Resist Energy, and Charm Person. What can a 12th-level martial do to compare with that narratively? What can a 14th-level martial do to compare with that narratively?
Not much. Martials have always have had little narrative ability; this isn't the fault of casters, though. People, for some reason, don't seem to like narrative ability for whatever reason. The discussion usually goes something like this:
Person A: Casters have too much narrative ability compared to martials.
Person B: Well, I enjoy playing casters precisely because I like having a character who has versatility and the ability to alter the flow of the narrative with his actions. I want to feel impactful and powerful. What's more I want to take advantage of the high fantasy setting to do fantastical things without relying on DM granted magic items. Why don't we make these kinds of options available to martial classes?
Person A: No. Giving martials supernatural abilities breaks my immersion. I hold one specific class to a standard of realism because it's called "fighter." If a person flies and shoots fireballs out of their hands, they better be called a wizard or else that's ridiculous. I refuse to play any character that's not a mundane.
Person B: But mundane sucks. I want high fantasy with lot's of narrative options. You can play mundane, but why do I have to suffer for it?
Person A: Because, when I play mundane, your character trivializes mine.
Now, I openly admit, I dislike mundane characters. I could go into great detail about why this is, but it really comes down to personal preference. Because of this, I hope that pathfinder 2e will not shaft every other non-mundane character build for the sake of balance. However, if this is the case and that's what the majority of players actually want, then that's fine; I'll just stick with 1E and 3.5.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In a world where Teleport is Uncommon, higher level, and has a longer casting time, I can see it being more activity used, without taking away from other parts.
While I don't particularly like the nerfs to teleport (see why I think teleporting is used), I understand why they were put in place. The problem is, they didn't just nerf the spell, they made it uncommon which means the spell will be less actively used, not more.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I actually agree. Getting heavy armor proficiency is as easy as starting down the Fighter multiclass path, or you invest three general feats into it. But at the start, Mage Armor will get you through the lower levels.I think you've misunderstood my point. Yes, getting full armour proficiencies with a single feat is also probably not great design, but even if Paizo removed that option, your best choice would still be to use heavy armour without proficiency, rather than using mage armour. Because there's no penalty for using armour you're not proficient in, other than it being slightly less effective.
Crikey. Well, that surely isn't incentivizing Wizards in full plate, or anything. Thanks to you and dnoisette for pointing it out.
Uncommon spells are a table issue not a game issue. If your table is so toxic that you loathe working with your DM to assure the 5 minutes you took to read a spell list doesn't poopoo on the 5 hours he takes to make and create content for the week then that game will suck no matter how spells are tagged.
It doesn't have to do anything with toxicity (although if you've read the forums long enough you've come across threads describing just that for people who live in areas with a low gamer population), but it definitely can have to do with rigidity. I've come across enough GM's who regard RAW as basically sacred and don't want to change written adventure paths at all. And they are otherwise good GM's. But if there is a rule, for them there's a good reason it exists, dammit, and they won't tolerate you wanting to change stuff around willy-nilly.
Still not seeing any issue with uncommon spells.
IF a player wants teleport and the GM is okay with it, he doesn't need to create weird sidequests to find a specific spell. He can just drop it as loot via a spellbook over the course of the adventure. Martials frequently get their equipment upgrades in a similar fashion. Wizards and other casters will now have a lot more to look forward to when looting enemies for finding lost treasure.
Other people and myself explained the issues several times by now. You can look them up upthread.
Okay, let's pick a really low-difficulty comparison here. A 9th-level wizard can prepare Teleport, Polymorph, Locate Creature, Tongues, Fly, Invisibility Sphere, Dispel Magic, Resist Energy, and Charm Person. What can a 12th-level martial do to compare with that narratively? What can a 14th-level martial do to compare with that narratively?
Several of those things can be duplicated with magic items. However, that is not what I meant with narrative power. For me that is the ability to affect the story of the game, which mostly comes from the character background and player. Yes, casters have more options through spells, but that doesn't mean that they replace martials in the game of teamwork which D&D/PF always has been.
It's a pretty large part that I can say has a problem with it - there were quite a few that had a problem even with current skill feats.
That's basically a unquantifiable statement, since it is anecdotal and not backed up by hard numbers.
My issue {and this was my fault for not being clear, long day and late night} wasn't the fact that Teleport could not be prevented (as other had pointed out), it was the fact it had to be prevented. As a player, when I had access to Teleport {either through my own ability, or that of another), it would be one of the 1st things I would try to use, and I would always feel a little bad when it did work. {though in most circumstances it would be what the character would try, a quick solution with lesser risks, less resources used, and greater chance to work, and live to tell the tale.)
And as a DM, I would always...
Just pointing out, just two months ago I had a situation where Teleport with a casting time would have meant a TPK for the party my character was in. Changes like this have unintended consequences, one of which is that it is not almost impossible to rapidly escape faster enemies if a fight goes wrong.
Furthermore, as I pointed out upthread, about every other concern you expressed has already been addressed with the nerfs in just the spell descriptions. The other five nerfs were completely unnecessary to address most common concerns with Teleport, which comes back to the topic that the developers went way too far in nerfing casters in general and arcane casters in particular.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Several of those things can be duplicated with magic items. However, that is not what I meant with narrative power. For me that is the ability to affect the story of the game, which mostly comes from the character background and player. Yes, casters have more options through spells, but that doesn't mean that they replace martials in the game of teamwork which D&D/PF always has been.
Are you really asserting that having significantly more options does not affect how much ability you have to affect the story of the game?
That's basically a unquantifiable statement, since it is anecdotal and not backed up by hard numbers.
It's precisely as anecdotal as this thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In both PF 1.0 and PF 2.0, I'll take the extra HP and better Fort saves over better Ref saves any day.
Are you sure? The extra HP from Con is less proportionately in PF2 than in PF1, and from what I're read simple damage is the way most will die in PF2; Ref is as relevant as Fort to that. And a spell you can cast in advance for +1 AC/saves is bizarrely rare in PF2.
Also, skills.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love my casters, but I've been one of those people asking for simultaneous nerfs to casters and a buffing of martials and that's what we got.
Some of the spells were over-nerfed and I think Paizo will come back up on some of them.
With regards to Uncommon items and over-strict GMs, perhaps you should talk to them, but if they're running pre-written modules I'm guessing the spells will show up at the appropriate time.
One big problem we had with Teleport, especially at high-levels was being able to do it twice. We would just teleport out and back as a party to re-equip. Since you were always going back to where you've been there really wasn't a problem. And while the castle might be warded it's hard to justify that the entire mountain was. At some point it just gets silly and the ability to just pop out and back whenever destroyed any tension.
Frankly Teleport should just be an overall less-nerfed version that is a 1-hr ritual with high-cost. Frankly I'd like to see a lot more spells maintain their more powerful effect, but become rituals.
I will ask this though, the people who are talking about martials being just as important narratively as casters, please stop lying to us or yourself. The fact that good roleplaying can come from anywhere is not a question of game balance and is not a balancing factor between martials and casters.
One last thing I will add, is that I'm sorry to see the backlash against 4e left us leaving behind a lot of good ideas that it had. Casting times of encounter or day were a really nice way not to worry about 1 min. vs. 10 min. Right now we're kind of stuck with arbitrary times of 1 min., 10 min., 1 hr. and sizes of 1, 5, and 10 people. As has been stated multiple times, 5 people isn't a great size for 6-person parties.
Though, I would like to see more consolidation of spells like Tongues, Comprehend Languages, etc.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are you really asserting that having significantly more options does not affect how much ability you have to affect the story of the game?
No, of course not. I said that narrative power comes from your characters background and the players desire to affect the story.
But, uh, I got news for you: Despite massive nerfs, casters still got all the spells you mentioned. Fighters and Rogues still don't. The point is that people who play Fighters and Rogues know this from the start when they build their characters.
It's precisely as anecdotal as this thread.
Actually I put in one day of work to first do a statistical analysis, as noted in the OP. Hence I used actual numbers before writing up my stuff. But, yes, of course the rest is my opinion. I never claimed that it was more.
One big problem we had with Teleport, especially at high-levels was being able to do it twice. We would just teleport out and back as a party to re-equip. Since you were always going back to where you've been there really wasn't a problem. And while the castle might be warded it's hard to justify that the entire mountain was. At some point it just gets silly and the ability to just pop out and back whenever destroyed any tension.
Yeah, I don't see it. Re-equipping yourself on longer treks is a natural part of adventuring, especially if you encounter pervasive problems which can only be solved through getting items you simply didn't anticipate beforehand. As an example: I'm in a group of evil-aligned characters and suddenly Holy Word's start flying around every second encounter. We suddenly have a hard need for Remove Blindness. Hence, the caster teleports and gets Remove Blindness scrolls from the nearest big city. Otherwise many future fights would probably doubly as hard as they should be.
I will ask this though, the people who are talking about martials being just as important narratively as casters, please stop lying to us or yourself. The fact that good roleplaying can come from anywhere is not a question of game balance and is not a balancing factor between martials and casters.
Yeah, well. Those kinds of insulting blanket assertions are what makes polite discussions difficult. "Lying to us and yourself" is frankly said a personal insult. Purely martial characters are, in terms of game power, underpowered. However, people choose to play them, when there are several other martial classes with spells available to them. The obvious solution would be to bring up the purely martial characters to a more equitable power level to casting capable classes, but then suddenly the martial purists come in and scream about "anime!". I just don't see why those fanatics should keep the entire game hostage with their demands of nerfing everyone down to their level.
Hey, we are all passionate about the game, it’s one of Pathfinders greatest strengths, the player base and how much they care about the game {and I did not get a chance to read you comment about Teleport, internet problems leaded to my post being posted much later than written.} The main point I had mentioned was not how DM’s had trouble preventing Teleport, but how Teleport could become such a large problem if left unchecked that DM’s often had to limit it through world mechanics. This water downs the actual usefulness of the spell, while also making the world have to accommodate.
Sure, but as I said, the developers addressed the vast majority of those problems just in the write-up for the new version. The thing I object to is how they then nerfed every other aspect of the spell as well.
I think it is difficult to correlate your Magic Missile example, since the spell is so common and not particularly powerful in the first place.
I agree with you, it is a big nerf that you can’t go to any unknown place, and not having to roll a percentile dice is a big benefit. The one exception is, while you cannot use the Scrying spell as a way of seeing into an unknown place to Teleport into, you can still use spells such as Prying Eyes and Clairvoyance to do those jobs. Ture, it is at a much smaller range, meaning more research and set up, possibly with the use of other skills, but you also get the new benefit of being able to Teleport straight in without rolling to see if there will be a mishap or be off target.}
Prying Eyes and Clairvoyance both need you to be very much nearer to the target and have their own drawbacks. They are a far cry from the Scry and Die tactic so popular with optimizer groups (funnily enough, my guys have never once tried to do that in 17 years, despite some bags false assertion that they are powergamers). Those options have huge drawbacks and can easily be countered by the GM.
Again, in large agreement, teleporting larger groups will be harder in this edition, if it stands as is. But larger groups tend to have a bit more of a benefit then smaller ones. I did not forget with larger groups there should be larger challenges, but they have more of an advantage to meet these challenges. During battle, they will have a greater action economy then the smaller group, while also having greater resources available to them. Both in and out of battle, it will be easier to specialize in areas and combining those specializations, then a smaller group which needs to take into account areas which they lack. While they larger groups will have a bit more trouble Teleporting there whole party---assuming only one person in the group can do it----I don’t believe this problem is enough to dissuade people from forming larger parties, given the benefits it has.}
Larger parties are mostly a result of having friends join your group, often on the invite of another friend, despite the obvious problems that brings to balancing a pre-written adventure, i.e. it's not a concious choice by players to "get more power". Hence the additional penalty by limiting the number of people who can be teleported and the smaller number of spells per day should not be there.
Yes the range has become much more limited than before. You need to cast it at a 7th level in PF2 to match the range of 10th level Wizard casting it at 5th level in PF1. At casting it at 8th level in PF2 you can go anywhere on the planet, much more than any CL in PF1, but needing to have seen it without the use of Scrying still limits it. The question I purpose is, given this new range limitations, is the spell to nerfed to be useful? Well, an average land speed of 20-25feet gives you 16-20 miles of travel per day. Casting it at level 6 allows you to teleport 100 miles, that is 5 day’s worth of travel as the crow flies, without twisting roads, climbing mountains, getting bogged down in marshes, ect. It’s also 5 days saved from encounters on the road, which could make you use limited resources, slow you down, or even get you killed. At 7th level, the range goes up to 1000 miles, saving you 50 days of road travel, and all the problems contained within. In comparison to its PF1 counter, there is no denying it is a big nerf, but comparing to what it can still do, it is still a very powerful spell.)
Yes, the range reduction is probably the most inconsequential of the nerfs. Still, unnecessary, IMO.
I’ll admit I do not have the greatest grasp on the subject, so I’m not be the best to comment. But I do believe Piazo stated from the outset this will be a bit different system, so conversion was always going to have problems. But this is less than a problem with the spell getting nerfed within its system, and more of an issue of conversion between the two. As for the spell being placed in a higher spell level, still a nerf, but still powerful. As mentioned above, still a good travel spell that can avoid random encounters, still can be used to get into places with a bit of prep ----perhaps in certain cases even easier than before--- and there are more benefits of the spell still to be discussed below. I should also note, if you do need a spell for fast travel at a level 5 slot, Shadow Walk has been lowered to that-----still has the Uncommon tag like Teleport, but we will get to that.}
As James Jacobs stated multiple times over the last months, Golarion doesn't get a big event like the Spell Plague or Time of Troubles to explain the change in magic. This is actively problematic to me now, because due to the almost all-encompassing nerfs to magic spells, magic users are now vastly less powerful than they were before. A single high-level Wizard fight now doesn't work anymore, since the usual tactic of pre-buffing a lot of defensive spells just isn't possible with one-minute durations almost all around. Hence, converting old AP's to PF2E just became that much harder for a GM to do. And it works the other way around as well, now suddenly new adventure paths will have to be built with the nerfed spell repertoire (and nerfed casting capabilities) in mind as well. Where a writer could reasonably assert that certain geographical features would be easy to circumvent by a party due to certain spells being available (Fly, Teleport, etc.), now that only happen at a later level and in much reduced capacity.
It's still possible to convert adventures of that kind back to PF1E, but it will require rewrites which would have not been necessary if shuffling around spell levels wouldn't have happened.
I did not forget about how Teleport can be used to get out of danger and prevent TPK’s and how this is harder to do with a 10 min casting time, even when I was doing my original comment on this thread. Its another example of how Teleport can be used as a solve all problem, in this case, the problem of a TPK. Now, I don’t think TPK’s are a bad thing, it’s sad when it happens, and a GM should not start a secession with the goal of killing everyone, but it should always be at least a slight possibility---from bad luck, to poor decisions, ect. Of course, I also do believe that with good decisions, a group should be able to get themselves out of a TPK position. However another reason why Teleport is so powerful is how often it can be used to get out of a TPK position, that it becomes a safety net when things go wrong. You got into a fight that you misjudged the power of your foes, no need to try and find a place to hide, or to push down a foe or make a distraction to create an opening for escape, or jump down the cliff, just hug your friendly neighbourhood Teleporting Wizard, and they make everything better, and this is just one example. In PF2, you can’t readily use it to get out of TPK position, making you rely on other skills, but it doesn’t mean you can’t use it all together to get out of those situations, you just need to have some forewarning to the danger. For example, if your stuck in the heart of a mine with no food and diminishing air, Teleport is still an answer. I do not mind the change, as it can still be used as a way to un-TPK the party if used smartly, but prevents it from being the absolute safety net it was in PF1.
I couldn't disagree more and I think you are strawmanning like crazy. TPK's are a tragedy if they happen and should be avoided at all costs. I'm proud to say that I never had one happen in almost two decades of GM'ing. Unless you are a GM of the style of Turin the Mad, where neither the GM nor the players have a problem of rolling out clones of their characters, most TPK's will end a campaign and that is, for me, months of preparation and lots of Euros washed down the drain.
Having a spell which can prevent the end of an entire campaign is a godsent and the developers unwisely chose to take that away. With the swingy nature of combat in PF2E, I expect TPK's to become much much more commonplace, and that is a bad, bad idea.
I don't think I can add anything new to your post about Uncommon spells, I put out all my arguments upthread, multiple times by now.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
By that logic, pf2 did a great job at nerfing blasting.
Because since it's a team effort, casters get to give their fly to the martial, and martial gets to do the damage.
Blasters usually got their decent damage (still not comparable single-target to a martial) at the expense of being less versatile at their other stuff. Their job was to weaken a room of enemies, so that the martials could more easily finish the job and the party could move on the next enemy. Or maybe sometimes clear a room of weak enemies every once in a while. The problem in PF2E is that the opportunity cost to do so is vastly more expensive, while hitpoint pools have not been nerfed accordingly. Rather the contrary, they seem to have been increased at higher levels... which if we kept the old paradigm of a spell autoscaling would be the better solution in the first place.
In all seriousness, I went through your list until like level 5 or so, and apart from some places where I disagree and some others you're just wrong (as an example true strike is THE best attack buff in the game atm, due to the 50-60% accuracy, this comes out as a ~+5 buff which is insane(remember that this interacts with the new crit rules excellently as well), plus concealment bypass, plus 1 action, plus doesn't provoke)
The problem here being that True Strike is a personal spell, which you omitted in your calculation. Unless you are playing a frontline arcane caster (not that unreasonable anymore with Full Plates being the best an arcane caster can get as soon as possible), you are not going to use True Strike that often, except for rays and ranged touch spells. Since TAC is normally still lower than normal AC, you won't need the extra "oomph" of True Strike very often. And the lower number of spells you get to memorize each level is also a big factor in limiting its utility.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In both PF 1.0 and PF 2.0, I'll take the extra HP and better Fort saves over better Ref saves any day.
Are you sure? The extra HP from Con is less proportionately in PF2 than in PF1, and from what I're read simple damage is the way most will die in PF2; Ref is as relevant as Fort to that. And a spell you can cast in advance for +1 AC/saves is bizarrely rare in PF2.
Also, skills.
What happens when you fail a Ref save right now?
Usually, you just lose more HP.Which matters less in the first place the more HP you have to begin with.
A successful Fort save might prevent you from being afflicted with other conditions that might be more detrimental than just extra HP damage. This notably includes diseases.
A Fort save is required when you're dying.
A Ref save won't do anything for you at this point.
So yes, I will still take the better Fort save and extra HP over better Ref save.
I have strictly no idea how 6% of the PC even died at 1st level in the Lost Star but I assume it must have had something to do with bad Fort save and the former rules for dying (before this weird errata that suddenly makes everyone invulnerable while unconscious...).
I'm not sure if you're entirely serious about the part where you sacrifice one of your highest spell slots for +1 AC and saving throws.
It's very likely that, by level 7, any Wizard will have taken heavy armor proficiency, which, based on my earlier example, means you're now required to cast the spell AND you're still at -1 AC compared to a heavy-armored caster.
You just spent a 4th level spell slot for a measly +1 to all saves.
Yeah, sorry, but that doesn't feel right at all.
The worst part is, you can no longer cast Mage Armor on your party's Monk or an animal companion.
So you spend one of your highest level spell slots on personal survivability only.
There's a reason a 1st level Wizard in 1.0 that would cast Mage Armor and Shield on themselves at the beginning of a fight was useless: personal survivability doesn't matter if you can no longer contribute meaningfully to the encounter when you're done buffing.
This is exactly the issue at hand here: you spend one of your most precious and rarest resource on personal survivability (again for +1 to all saves really) and you're left unable to cast an extra spell per day that could have been more help to the party.
It's just not worth it.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ofc it's a personal spell. That doesn't change its awesomeness at all though.
Gish will use it with attacks Casters will use it with rays (there are a lot of them now and a lot of which have crit effects as well)
You're seriously underestimating one of the best spells in pf2.
As for blasters, I know what they did and what they do now. And yes, now they aren't that good. But you're discrediting them too much as well.
A fireball hitting just 3 targets at level 5 is 18d6 damage. That's far more than what a martial can do in a round at that level. It won't kill anything, but it will soften the encounter.
Gish will use True Strike and be happy for it.
Casters who decided they would rather not wade into melee combat probably won't, because ray and ranged touch attacks usually don't require this to have a decent chance to hit in the first place.
Not to mention, spending one more 1st level spell just to increase your chance to deal more damage with another doesn't make sense with a limited number of spell slots per day.
At 7th level, I can spend one of my four 1st level spell slots on True Strike and another one of my three 4th level spell slots on hightened Acid Arrow.
Assuming I had 50% chance to hit in the first place and what you're saying about True Strike is true, basically increasing my chances to hit by about 25%, then the average damage of Acid Arrow in a given round is 15.
Here's the math:
0.75 (hit chance with True Strike) * [2d8 (base damage) + 4 (max INT modifier) + 2d6 (persistent damage)] = 0.75*20 = 15
This against a single target.
Meanwhile, a Fighter with a +1 two-handed greatsword just hit the mob with rather similar accuracy (because they're already master in their chosen weapon) and can deal as much as 17 damage on one hit (2d12+4 STR modifier).
They get to attack up to 3 times a round.
Seems like a total waste of my actions to even try to match the Fighter's single target DPS.
AoE spells such as Fireball are better because they target more foes and so I might still consider casting them.
But they no longer require an attack roll and thus True Strike has no use there.
In short, yes, True Strike is good for Gish characters.
But it's not for pure casters and personal use only makes it a rather poor spell for them.
ut my main concern is that atm, Casters are still the kings of utility and the kings of debuff and control. Making pure blasting a viable path, will just give 1 more out for Casters, while martials are still stuck on the "do damage" and "tank damage" options. Where is the option of the utility martial that's the king of exploration and general answers that Casters can be?
You just said it yourself, it's a team effort right now.
I am spending valuable resources casting Haste and Fly on your Fighter during combat so that your Fighter gets to be the hero who deals damage and takes down the boss.
The whole thing about being a caster is giving your team an extra edge with debuffing and controlling the battlefield.
You're never the hero yourself, you don't do damage yourself, you exist only to make other martial characters shine.
And I'm just fine with that because I'm a "play healer/support" kind of girl in MMORPGs.
Now, if you're saying on top of not being able to sustain damage or deal damage, I should not have access to any other spells than those that will let me buff martial characters in combat, I'm beginning to feel that what you're saying is actually: "shut up casters, do nothing and watch me be awesome on my own".
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ofc it's a personal spell. That doesn't change its awesomeness at all though.
Gish will use it with attacks Casters will use it with rays (there are a lot of them now and a lot of which have crit effects as well)
You're seriously underestimating one of the best spells in pf2.
Maybe, however the low number of spells per day will put a sharp limit to its usefulness.
As for blasters, I know what they did and what they do now. And yes, now they aren't that good. But you're discrediting them too much as well.
A fireball hitting just 3 targets at level 5 is 18d6 damage. That's far more than what a martial can do in a round at that level. It won't kill anything, but it will soften the encounter.
It doesn't matter that much if you do vastly more damage in total in a round than a martial (and you are discounting the very high chance that you will do 50% damage as well), but that you are killing enemies. Because opponents function at 100% efficiency in D&D/Pathfinder until they are dead. Hence, you want to be weaking enemies enough to have your martials finish them off before they can act often enough to seriously endanger your party. With a much higher chance to save for opponents, nerfed damage overall for blasters, less spells per day and having to memorize/know the blasting spells at the highest spell level you can even cast, the opportunity cost is just not very much "there" anymore, compared to casting a second level Blindness spell. Except where the GM throws very weak opponent groups at you and the tight mathematical skeleton of PF2E makes them so trivial that you might as well let your martials clean them up instead.
But my main concern is that atm, Casters are still the kings of utility and the kings of debuff and control. Making pure blasting a viable path, will just give 1 more out for Casters, while martials are still stuck on the "do damage" and "tank damage" options. Where is the option of the utility martial that's the king of exploration and general answers that Casters can be?
Well, you better ask that question of the developers. I would have been all for Tome of Battle martials in PF2E, believe me.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mage armor is a level 1 spell mostly. At level 2+ you're supposed to use bracers like everyone is supposed to be using magic armor from level 3+
It has the very situational option of heightening it if for some reason you're lacking your bracers (stolen?).
So, let's assume I did not cast that spell this morning because I have Bracers of Armor +2 at level 7.
Hopefully, the party's Rogue did not steal them. :PMy buddy Eric, the heavily-armored Battle Mage, looks up to me and says: "why did you bother getting this item in the first place when I have better AC than you do with my heavy armor?"
Do keep in mind that getting heavy armor proficiency can be done with general feats as well as class feats, which means you don't have to sacrifice any of your wizard class feats for it if you don't want to limit your spellcasting options.
I now tell Eric : "but I have better saves, look, +1!".
To which Eric shrugs and says: "You have better Ref saves. I have better Fort saves because I have more Constitution than you do. We have similar Will saves."
At this point it's hard to argue that the best option for a spellcaster right now it to just wear heavy armor...
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, casters in Pf2 are the debilitators and martials the finishers. That doesn't make them bad. That doesn't make them less of a hero.
It makes them something that people who liked playing casters in 3.x not want to play them. Or PF2 in general. So there's that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now we're going in circles.
Do you even remotely think that martials like that they get to do nothing while casters are the heroes in everything utility wise?
"oh no, that City will fall, we can literally do nothing to save it"
"worry not, our party has a caster" *teleports*"oh no, who can have done that"
*divination*"this one""look at this impassable mountsin/rift/floating city"
*fly*Etc
Yes, casters in Pf2 are the debilitators and martials the finishers. That doesn't make them bad. That doesn't make them less of a hero.
And there even still spells that offer full control even on a successive save, albeit with lower duration (like blind)
P. S
Now, don't get me wrong, SOME things can be improved. For one, a little more spells that did something on a fail would be nice.
Some, now useless, spells could be brought up.
Etc
but, generally, Wizards, Clerics and Bards are truly solid balance wise atm imo.
First off, why are you playing a martial when you know going in that your options are more limited than the ones of casters? What is your goal here, make the game only have mundane options anymore?
All your examples can easily be countered by the GM. There are hints how to do that in Ultimate Intrigue (one of the best books Paizo has brought out in the last years).
I just don't get why you would want to vastly weaken classes which help you achieve your goals in the game. Is there so much "class envy" from players of Fighters and Rogues?
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
"first off, why do do you play a caster if you know your damage is limited compared to martials? "
Again, your OWN evaluation lists several decent spells at each level. I fail to see that as" broken". Some underperforming spells can surely be brought up, but generally, the class is fine.
Well, then I think we are done here. Your and my definition of "fine" clearly differs substantially. Thanks for participating in my thread.
If it were up to me, my solution would be to bring martials up a level, so that they have more meaningful options outside of combat, not bring down casters without offering them anything positive to look forward to. IMO, this will kill PF2E for many players. The developers were smarter about this in the change from D&D 3.5 to PF1E, when they nerfed quite a lot of spells, but offered better options at the same time for casters.
The best solution would have been for PF2E, IMO, to nerf the overpowered options for casters (pretty clearly defined after 10 years of practical testing by thousands of players), fix problems with their classes, buff martials substantially in their options (akin to Tome of Battle) and buff monsters to compensate. The developers pretty much took the opposite direction, which I hope that I can still help reverse. It's not probable that I will be able to, but at least I can try.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, your OWN evaluation lists several decent spells at each level. I fail to see that as" broken". Some underperforming spells can surely be brought up, but generally, the class is fine.
Except with a few decent spells per day, you get to be decent a few times per day only.
When the enemy does not save.You're useless the rest of the time.
A Fighter does not suddenly stop after 10 attacks and say: "that's it for the day guys, need to rest now, can't hit anymore".
Because of the very nature of spellcasting, spells need to be more impactful.
You can't cast as many as you want in a day and when you lose one, it really hurts.
Failing an attack with a weapon doesn't matter because you're free to try again as much as you like.
Successfully casting a spell must thus be more rewarding.
The spells that magnuskn labelled as "decent" are not decent by PF 1.0. standards.
They're decent by PF 2.0 standards and if we were to actually compare their utility and power with 1st edition, they would probably end up with a big fat red garbage tag in a guide...
Of course, one might lower their expectations of what a spellcaster should be able to do enough that they think it's fine the way it is right now.
I wonder what would happen if, all of a sudden, Monks became the ultimate martial character and unarmed attacks the only viable melee style while Fighters were politely told: "Sorry, two-handed used to do too much damage so we can't have that anymore. No more feats for two-handed combat. Actually, now you have to spend an action focusing before even attacking with a two-handed weapon. Because reasons."
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whether you add +Level or not, in PF2, a 20th-level fighter still needs the same rolls vs. a pit fiend (nothing changes, at all).
Meanwhile, a spellcaster is still as ineffective as they were at level 1 at influencing the outcome of the fight in a meaningful way.
Because their spells don't get much better at higher levels and the good ones are gated behind uncommon/rare list.
I agree with you that it's really bothersome that a Fighter level 20 has the same chance to hit a pit fiend than they did hitting a kobold at level 1.
But the main issue at hand, for me, is that casters don't contribute anything impactful at 1st level and, because of the mechanic you just described, they keep on being negligible at higher levels of play.
If we're gonna have the exact same chance to do something useful at all levels, no matter the class or build, then all classes better be balanced!
In PF 1.0, it was hard for a low-level Wizard to survive and contribute but they did so knowing they would get better at higher levels and their presence was then highly appreciated.
In PF 2.0, the same Wizard is nearly useless at lower levels but...it doesn't get better with higher levels anyway, because of the game's core design.
I would like to point out a significant factor in spellcaster effectiveness that has not been mentioned: Spell Resistance does not exist in PF2 (it seems to have been replaced with a static +1 bonus to saves).
In short, yes, True Strike is good for Gish characters.
But it's not for pure casters and personal use only makes it a rather poor spell for them.
True Strike is great for Enervation, Disintegrate, and Polar Ray. The first two get increased and quite brutual effects on a crit, the second puts a heavy debuff on with a hit (and wastes an 8th level spell on a miss), so it's worth it. I wouldn't use True Strike on others, though.
Universalist Wizards with Focus Conservation Feat can get good work out of True Strie slots against tough enemies. Round 1 (Buff/debuff/crowd control spell with drain focus plus focus conservation action), Round 2 free True Strike (from focus conservation) plus a ranged attack (usually Enervation) against a tough enemy. Round 3 hit them with something that targets the debuffed saves.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
The weirdest effect of the PF2 Playtest spell list is that it converted Starfinder into Paizo's high magic setting. Instead of trying to figure out whether high tech or something during the Gap resulted in the weaker magic in Starfinder, now we have to decide whether high tech/improved education or something during the Gap resulted in the stronger magic in Starfinder.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to point out a significant factor in spellcaster effectiveness that has not been mentioned: Spell Resistance does not exist in PF2 (it seems to have been replaced with a static +1 bonus to saves).
It is true that there is no more spell resistance.
Unfortunately, there is also no more Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus either, so you can't boost the save DC of your spells from a specific school.This means that all of your spells are just as likely to hit, and they have the same chance to work on any given foe at level 1 and level 20.
Basically, all Wizards are now the same, with 1-2 arcane powers to differentiate one from another - which might not even be true since universalist Wizard with Focus Conservation is by far the best option.
It takes away a good chunk of the fun there is in character creation, customization and optimization.
Previously, you knew that, starting at certain levels, spell resistance would become a common thing.
You would have to plan around this in one of two ways: boost your spell penetration with approriate choice of feats or ignore it altogether.
Casters who used to focus on save-or-suck and very powerful spells would push their spell penetration to the max, as well as the spells' save DC.
Casters who relied on summons, buff spells and conjuration control spells could afford to overlook this aspect of the game when building their character because those were not subject to spell resistance.
In short, I would rather have spell resistance return and the option to build my character to go through it - or not.
At this point, I have covered all of the issues I have with spellcasters right now and the lack of ability to customize and optimize them to make them more effective at higher levels is the part I hate the most.
I just don't understand why I should go through the first few levels with about enough spells that I'll end up casting the same cantrip over and over again 90% of the time if I don't end up with far more spells slots and stronger magic at higher levels.
The only improvement from PF 1.0 for Wizards right now is the ability to cast a cantrip at will rather than carry a crossbow during the first levels.
Meanwhile, the list of what they have lost at higher levels of play goes on and on...
At 7th level, I can spend one of my four 1st level spell slots on True Strike and another one of my three 4th level spell slots on hightened Acid Arrow.
Assuming I had 50% chance to hit in the first place and what you're saying about True Strike is true, basically increasing my chances to hit by about 25%, then the average damage of Acid Arrow in a given round is 15.
Here's the math:
0.75 (hit chance with True Strike) * [2d8 (base damage) + 4 (max INT modifier) + 2d6 (persistent damage)] = 0.75*20 = 15This against a single target.
Meanwhile, a Fighter with a +1 two-handed greatsword just hit the mob with rather similar accuracy (because they're already master in their chosen weapon) and can deal as much as 17 damage on one hit (2d12+4 STR modifier).
They get to attack up to 3 times a round.
Well, in fairness, what actually happens is you throw our your acid arrow, and the fighter spends a full round moving 60 feet. Then you through out another acid arrow, and the fighter spends another full round moving 60 feet. Then you throw out a 3rd acid arrow and the greatsword fighter can finally start hitting things.
If you're going to use a spell with 120ft range, compare it to a longbow fighter, who's looking at an expected 13.2 damage with 18 str, 18 dex and a +1 composite longbow doing a full round attack ((2 + 9) * (.65 + .4 + .15). Doubleshot improves the dpr but against different targets. This is also assuming the foe has equal AC & TAC (usually AC is higher) and that hitting TAC without truestrike is at a 50% chance (effective +5 from truestrike for 75% vs an effective + 3 from item + master in weapon for 65%). If you're a sorcerer with dangerous sorcery your expected damage goes up by 3 to 18. This...doesn't seem terribly unreasonable to me.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree on nerfing the cast time of Teleport. Getting out of jail free on the blink of an eye wasn't really what the spell was meant to do (That would be why Dimension Door Exists).
It's purpose should be the already super powerful ability to ignore traveling around the town/dungeon/world map.
The casting could be 1hr for all I care, if you can bring all your buddies to the place you want reliably. It should be a well planned and premeditated activity that has no use in combat or in the middle of a dungeon (Except maybe to escape it). Sure, they did wreck the range and amount of targets (which does suck), but at least they went in the right direction for other things.
And this comes from someone that agrees with the OP, spellsaren't very reliable vs saves at any level and a few seem worthwhile anyways.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, in fairness, what actually happens is you throw our your acid arrow, and the fighter spends a full round moving 60 feet. Then you through out another acid arrow, and the fighter spends another full round moving 60 feet. Then you throw out a 3rd acid arrow and the greatsword fighter can finally start hitting things.If you're going to use a spell with 120ft range, compare it to a longbow fighter, who's looking at an expected 13.2 damage with 18 str, 18 dex and a +1 composite longbow doing a full round attack ((2 + 9) * (.65 + .4 + .15). Doubleshot improves the dpr but against different targets. This is also assuming the foe has equal AC & TAC (usually AC is higher) and that hitting TAC without truestrike is at a 50% chance (effective +5 from truestrike for 75% vs an effective + 3 from item + master in weapon for 65%). If you're a sorcerer with dangerous sorcery your expected damage goes up by 3 to 18. This...doesn't seem terribly unreasonable to me.
The range on this spell could be 30 feet and it would feel the same.
In most APs and modules, there are precious little opportunities to fire on foes that are more than 30-40 feet away from you.
Just take a look at the Lost Star. There's no single encounter that's not designed to be played in a 20 ft. square.
When such rare situations happen, enemies are also generally moving towards you during their round, which cuts distance in half.
In years of playing Pathfinder, I don't think I've ever seen a Fighter having to spend two full rounds moving to get up to a foe.
I'm probably bound to see it happen at some point but this is certainly not going to reflect how an encounter goes for about 90% of the time.
There's a reason archers in 1.0 went for the feats and options to have their ranged attacks not provoke attacks of opportunity in the first place.
And that's because, most of the time, foes are right there in your place and not standing 120 feet away from you without moving.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The range on this spell could be 30 feet and it would feel the same.
In most APs and modules, there are precious little opportunities to fire on foes that are more than 30-40 feet away from you.
Just take a look at the Lost Star. There's no single encounter that's not designed to be played in a 20 ft. square.
When such rare situations happen, enemies are also generally moving towards you during their round, which cuts distance in half.
In years of playing Pathfinder, I don't think I've ever seen a Fighter having to spend two full rounds moving to get up to a foe.I'm probably bound to see it happen at some point but this is certainly not going to reflect how an encounter goes for about 90% of the time.
There's a reason archers in 1.0 went for the feats and options to have their ranged attacks not provoke attacks of opportunity in the first place.
And that's because, most of the time, foes are right there in your place and not standing 120 feet away from you without moving.
I'll agree with that. In that case, shocking grasp would be a more fair comparison. With the same numbers, compared to a great sword, that's looking at 17.6 damage (spell) vs 20.4 (sword), not accounting for the extra riders on shocking grasp and assuming equal AC & TAC, which is more disappointing for having spent 2 spell slots to come out behind.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Forth: Everyone is forgetting one big thing about single target attacks and that is TO HIT TAC. After level 7 you have less than a 50% chance to hit unless you use True Strike on each attack. Also if you have to roll to hit a target then that target gets a save you increase the total fail rate of that spell to the Miss chance + ½ x critical save rate. So this can give you up to a 70% fail rate on a spell, which is crap.
It's true that most touch attack spells used to not require a save.
I'm not sure why they felt it was now necessary to have the enemy save after you rolled successfully for your attack.
Martial characters don't have the enemy roll to cut their damage in half when they hit. Why should casters?